[[email protected][_2_]]

Watching Holmes do his thing on TV, I've noticed that most
of the electric service panels are installed horizontally instead
of vertically. Must be some Canada thing? What's up with
that? It looks nuts to me.

And on a recent episode where he had to fix a bay window,
he wound up tearing out what appeared to me to be a
perfectly fine electric panel. It was installed vertically. He
bitched about some of the wires that went to the breakers
entering the panel from the top and said that was not allowed,
that only the mains could enter from the top.
Mine enter from the top and I've seen new construction here in NJ
where they enter that way. What's up with that? Seems
perfectly safe to me and also, if it's not allowed, why would
the panel manufacturer provide knockouts in the top?

And what's that Canadian fetish for putting the freaking panel
sideways, which they did with the new panel?

[[email protected]]

Holmes is in Canada. They have different rules than the USA. Maybe you can't run circuits into the top of the panel in Canada, but it's okay in the USA.

The holes are in the top because they market the same products in both countries.

He also likes to make himself sound like a hard-ass. Most of the "disasters" he finds, there's really nothing wrong. It just wasn't done *his* way.

[Tomsic[_2_]]

wrote in message
...
Watching Holmes do his thing on TV, I've noticed that most
of the electric service panels are installed horizontally instead
of vertically. Must be some Canada thing? What's up with
that? It looks nuts to me.

And on a recent episode where he had to fix a bay window,
he wound up tearing out what appeared to me to be a
perfectly fine electric panel. It was installed vertically. He
bitched about some of the wires that went to the breakers
entering the panel from the top and said that was not allowed,
that only the mains could enter from the top.
Mine enter from the top and I've seen new construction here in NJ
where they enter that way. What's up with that? Seems
perfectly safe to me and also, if it's not allowed, why would
the panel manufacturer provide knockouts in the top?

And what's that Canadian fetish for putting the freaking panel
sideways, which they did with the new panel?

Seems like it matters whether or not the panel is recessed or surface
mounted. Vertical panels fit between the studs. Using a recessed
horizontal panel would require some stud carpentry. I like the horizontal
idea though because it would make threading all the wires through multiple
vertical drops a bit easier than forcing them all into one.

Horizontal wireways and feeder channels have been used for years in
commercial systems, but I don't recall seeing horizontal panels.

Congratulations, you've hit on a subject which will generate a massive
rearrangement of electrons on the internet lines.

Tomsic

[J Burns]

On 3/21/12 9:22 AM, wrote:


And what's that Canadian fetish for putting the freaking panel
sideways, which they did with the new panel?

I can imagine an advantage. You could use breakers where down was off.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Mar 21, 11:32*am, J Burns wrote:
On 3/21/12 9:22 AM, wrote:



And what's that Canadian fetish for putting the freaking panel
sideways, which they did with the new panel?

I can imagine an advantage. *You could use breakers where down was off.

It would only be off for breakers on one part of the
panel, ie the top row or bottom row.

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:32:36 -0400, J Burns wrote:

On 3/21/12 9:22 AM, wrote:


And what's that Canadian fetish for putting the freaking panel
sideways, which they did with the new panel?

I can imagine an advantage. You could use breakers where down was off.

....and the other half, up is off. Not so good.

[Stormin Mormon[_7_]]

For half the panel....

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"J Burns" wrote in message
...
On 3/21/12 9:22 AM, wrote:


And what's that Canadian fetish for putting the freaking panel
sideways, which they did with the new panel?

I can imagine an advantage. You could use breakers where down was off.

[gregz]

" wrote:
Watching Holmes do his thing on TV, I've noticed that most
of the electric service panels are installed horizontally instead
of vertically. Must be some Canada thing? What's up with
that? It looks nuts to me.

And on a recent episode where he had to fix a bay window,
he wound up tearing out what appeared to me to be a
perfectly fine electric panel. It was installed vertically. He
bitched about some of the wires that went to the breakers
entering the panel from the top and said that was not allowed,
that only the mains could enter from the top.
Mine enter from the top and I've seen new construction here in NJ
where they enter that way. What's up with that? Seems
perfectly safe to me and also, if it's not allowed, why would
the panel manufacturer provide knockouts in the top?

And what's that Canadian fetish for putting the freaking panel
sideways, which they did with the new panel?

I think those panels were made different. Most of the holes in my vertical
are on top. And there is no obstruction on top.

Greg

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Mar 21, 1:37*pm, bud-- wrote:
On 3/21/2012 7:22 AM, wrote:





Watching Holmes do his thing on TV, I've noticed that most
of the electric service panels are installed horizontally instead
of vertically. *Must be some Canada thing? *What's up with
that? *It looks nuts to me.

And on a recent episode where he had to fix a bay window,
he wound up tearing out what appeared to me to be a
perfectly fine electric panel. *It was installed vertically. *He
bitched about some of the wires that went to the breakers
entering the panel from the top and said that was not allowed,
that only the mains could enter from the top.
Mine enter from the top and I've seen new construction here in NJ
where they enter that way. *What's up with that? *Seems
perfectly safe to me and also, if it's not allowed, why would
the panel manufacturer provide knockouts in the top?

And what's that Canadian fetish for putting the freaking panel
sideways, which they did with the new panel?

* What I have pieced together from comments on the show is that the top,
with the hot service wires, has to remain enclosed when the trim is off
and that other wires can not go through that area.

I thought I saw at least one instance of that too, where
there was a secondary metal enclosure of some kind
that isolated the connection to the main breaker even
when the main cover panel was off. That seems
like it might be a good idea. That way if you open
the main, you can work on the rest of the panel without
the danger of hitting the incoming service wires where
they connect to the main breaker. Is it that
way on some panels used here in the USA too, where
they have some secondary cover to close off the main?

But I don't see why you could not design a panel that
had the above type of cover for the main and still allow
for wires to enter from the top on either side of it. Cover
the center portion where the main is connected, but then
have knockouts on the left and right at the top where the
wires could come down either side to the breakers.


If the panel is
vertical the wires come in the lower sides. If the panel is horizontal
the wires travel a shorter distance to get to the same area.

Yes, I got that impression too. Not sure how much it really helps
though as while it's now a straight shot to the upper breakers, it's
still
a long run inside the panel or around the panel to get to the
breakers
that are on the bottom row.



It seems rather odd to have the panels horizontal since it is not
allowed in the US. Breakers must be off in the down position.

Seems odd to me too. First time I saw it I thought it was because
of the particular location. But clearly this is a preference on the
Holmes
show, if not for Canada or parts of Canada in general.




I have not understood why they replaced some panels. Or why some other
work was done. Given some of the major disasters Holmes finds I
sometimes wonder if quality of construction can be much lower in Canada.
Some interesting shows though.

On the one I described, Holmes was there to finish putting in a large
bay window. Somehow in the process he replaced what looked to me
like a perfectly fine electric panel, because some of the wires were
coming in
from the top. He also wound up with a plumber running inspection cams
down drain pipes. Go figure.

[Bud--]

On 3/21/2012 7:22 AM, wrote:
Watching Holmes do his thing on TV, I've noticed that most
of the electric service panels are installed horizontally instead
of vertically. Must be some Canada thing? What's up with
that? It looks nuts to me.

And on a recent episode where he had to fix a bay window,
he wound up tearing out what appeared to me to be a
perfectly fine electric panel. It was installed vertically. He
bitched about some of the wires that went to the breakers
entering the panel from the top and said that was not allowed,
that only the mains could enter from the top.
Mine enter from the top and I've seen new construction here in NJ
where they enter that way. What's up with that? Seems
perfectly safe to me and also, if it's not allowed, why would
the panel manufacturer provide knockouts in the top?

And what's that Canadian fetish for putting the freaking panel
sideways, which they did with the new panel?

What I have pieced together from comments on the show is that the top,
with the hot service wires, has to remain enclosed when the trim is off
and that other wires can not go through that area. If the panel is
vertical the wires come in the lower sides. If the panel is horizontal
the wires travel a shorter distance to get to the same area.

It seems rather odd to have the panels horizontal since it is not
allowed in the US. Breakers must be off in the down position.

I have not understood why they replaced some panels. Or why some other
work was done. Given some of the major disasters Holmes finds I
sometimes wonder if quality of construction can be much lower in Canada.
Some interesting shows though.

--
bud--

[J Burns]

On 3/21/12 11:39 AM, wrote:
On Mar 21, 11:32 am, J wrote:
On 3/21/12 9:22 AM, wrote:



And what's that Canadian fetish for putting the freaking panel
sideways, which they did with the new panel?

I can imagine an advantage. You could use breakers where down was off.

It would only be off for breakers on one part of the
panel, ie the top row or bottom row.

You could use breakers where down was off. Naturally, it wouldn't work
with breakers were out is off.

[Oren[_2_]]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 06:22:04 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

It looks nuts to me.

Turn your head sideways to read the breaker numbers? (G)

[Chip C]

On Wednesday, 21 March 2012 12:43:00 UTC-4, Gz wrote:
" wrote:
Watching Holmes do his thing on TV, I've noticed that most
of the electric service panels are installed horizontally instead
of vertically. Must be some Canada thing? What's up with
that? It looks nuts to me.

And on a recent episode where he had to fix a bay window,
he wound up tearing out what appeared to me to be a
perfectly fine electric panel. It was installed vertically. He
bitched about some of the wires that went to the breakers
entering the panel from the top and said that was not allowed,
that only the mains could enter from the top.
Mine enter from the top and I've seen new construction here in NJ
where they enter that way. What's up with that? Seems
perfectly safe to me and also, if it's not allowed, why would
the panel manufacturer provide knockouts in the top?

And what's that Canadian fetish for putting the freaking panel
sideways, which they did with the new panel?

I think those panels were made different. Most of the holes in my vertical
are on top. And there is no obstruction on top.

Greg

Yes, Canadian-spec panels have an enclosed part where the main breakers are, so they stay covered when you're working on the branch circuits. So if you bother to shut off the main breaker before doing so, you have no exposed live voltages while you're connecting or removing a breaker; plus (probably the main point) there's no way for branch circuit conductors to make contact with any live voltages upstream of the main breakers. So you have greater confidence that when those breakers are open, everything is cold.

Obviously given such a construction, branch circuit cables aren't supposed to run through this protected area. On the panels I've seen there isn't any proper between the two sections, so I can't guess how they've done it. Could be older panels weren't like this, in which case the beef would just be general proximity of branch conductors to the bits upstream of the breakers..

And according the the book I use for such matters, there are no rules governing orientation of the panel. What fraction of Canadian homes have 'em horizontal, who knows.

Now, what's strange on the US fixup shows is the stuff mounted on the *outside* of houses. Electric meters and shutoffs on a pole by the street, weird enough but I kinda get the point. But electrical panels and tankless water heaters on the outside wall...what's up with that? You got the washer and dryer on the patio?

Chip C
Toronto

[Tegger[_3_]]

" wrote in news:157bbc32-
:

Watching Holmes do his thing on TV, I've noticed that most
of the electric service panels are installed horizontally instead
of vertically. Must be some Canada thing? What's up with
that? It looks nuts to me.


Mine is vertical. The breakers switch left-to-right.



--
Tegger

[Duesenberg]

On 3/21/2012 9:22 AM, wrote:
Watching Holmes do his thing on TV, I've noticed that most
of the electric service panels are installed horizontally instead
of vertically. Must be some Canada thing? What's up with
that? It looks nuts to me.

And on a recent episode where he had to fix a bay window,
he wound up tearing out what appeared to me to be a
perfectly fine electric panel. It was installed vertically. He
bitched about some of the wires that went to the breakers
entering the panel from the top and said that was not allowed,
that only the mains could enter from the top.
Mine enter from the top and I've seen new construction here in NJ
where they enter that way. What's up with that? Seems
perfectly safe to me and also, if it's not allowed, why would
the panel manufacturer provide knockouts in the top?

And what's that Canadian fetish for putting the freaking panel
sideways, which they did with the new panel?


I'm in Canada and my panel was installed sideways because the existing
wiring was too SHORT to run down to the bottom of the new panel if
mounted vertically. So it's mounted sideways to allow all existing
wiring a chance to connect without using sub-panels

New panel was a Siemens 32/64 and it replaced a 20 circuit vertical fuse
panel that was half the size if not smaller. All new wiring will
connect to the bottom of the new horizontal because it's freshly run
wire and allowances are made for length of wire, and all the existing
circuit are at the top because there is no slack or additional length to
run.

[Duesenberg]

Yes, Canadian-spec panels have an enclosed part where the main breakers are, so they stay covered when you're working on the branch circuits. So if you bother to shut off the main breaker before doing so, you have no exposed live voltages while you're connecting or removing a breaker; plus (probably the main point) there's no way for branch circuit conductors to make contact with any live voltages upstream of the main breakers. So you have greater confidence that when those breakers are open, everything is cold.

Obviously given such a construction, branch circuit cables aren't supposed to run through this protected area. On the panels I've seen there isn't any proper between the two sections, so I can't guess how they've done it. Could be older panels weren't like this, in which case the beef would just be general proximity of branch conductors to the bits upstream of the breakers.

And according the the book I use for such matters, there are no rules governing orientation of the panel. What fraction of Canadian homes have 'em horizontal, who knows.

Now, what's strange on the US fixup shows is the stuff mounted on the *outside* of houses. Electric meters and shutoffs on a pole by the street, weird enough but I kinda get the point. But electrical panels and tankless water heaters on the outside wall...what's up with that? You got the washer and dryer on the patio?

Chip C
Toronto


In rural Eastern Ontario, especially on farms, electrical meters are
still found on the road pole or the first pole on private land of older
homes or farmsteads.

Sometimes there can be 10 or 20 poles before you get to a barn or a
house way back of beyond, so they left the meters on the road pole so
the meter readers could easily read them every three months.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Mar 21, 3:29*pm, J Burns wrote:
On 3/21/12 11:39 AM, wrote:

On Mar 21, 11:32 am, J *wrote:
On 3/21/12 9:22 AM, wrote:

And what's that Canadian fetish for putting the freaking panel
sideways, which they did with the new panel?

I can imagine an advantage. *You could use breakers where down was off.

It would only be off for breakers on one part of the
panel, ie the top row or bottom row.

You could use breakers where down was off. *Naturally, it wouldn't work
with breakers were out is off.

Umm, where do you buy those? When I go to look
for a breaker for a panel, they come in a variety of
flavorrs. But I've yet to see a choice as to whether
off is towards one side or the other.

[DD_BobK]

On Mar 21, 5:56*pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 21, 3:29*pm, J Burns wrote:

On 3/21/12 11:39 AM, wrote:

On Mar 21, 11:32 am, J *wrote:
On 3/21/12 9:22 AM, wrote:

And what's that Canadian fetish for putting the freaking panel
sideways, which they did with the new panel?

I can imagine an advantage. *You could use breakers where down was off.

It would only be off for breakers on one part of the
panel, ie the top row or bottom row.

You could use breakers where down was off. *Naturally, it wouldn't work
with breakers were out is off.

Umm, where do you buy those? *When I go to look
for a breaker for a panel, they come in a variety of
flavorrs. * But I've yet to see a choice as to whether
off is towards one side or the other.



Depends on the age of the panel or subpanel.

Back in the 70's, in panels with two rows of breakers, toggled towards
the space between the rows is "off" ( think....too lazy to walk out to
the garage)

Electrical code was changed (some time between now & then) and now
requires new panels adhere to:
Up - on
Down - off

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:56:36 -0400, "Tomsic" wrote:


wrote in message
...
Watching Holmes do his thing on TV, I've noticed that most
of the electric service panels are installed horizontally instead
of vertically. Must be some Canada thing? What's up with
that? It looks nuts to me.

And on a recent episode where he had to fix a bay window,
he wound up tearing out what appeared to me to be a
perfectly fine electric panel. It was installed vertically. He
bitched about some of the wires that went to the breakers
entering the panel from the top and said that was not allowed,
that only the mains could enter from the top.
Mine enter from the top and I've seen new construction here in NJ
where they enter that way. What's up with that? Seems
perfectly safe to me and also, if it's not allowed, why would
the panel manufacturer provide knockouts in the top?

And what's that Canadian fetish for putting the freaking panel
sideways, which they did with the new panel?

Seems like it matters whether or not the panel is recessed or surface
mounted. Vertical panels fit between the studs. Using a recessed
horizontal panel would require some stud carpentry. I like the horizontal
idea though because it would make threading all the wires through multiple
vertical drops a bit easier than forcing them all into one.

All the wires would have to penetrate the entire header over the (sideways)
panel, though, no? Sounds like a PITA.

Horizontal wireways and feeder channels have been used for years in
commercial systems, but I don't recall seeing horizontal panels.

Congratulations, you've hit on a subject which will generate a massive
rearrangement of electrons on the internet lines.

Not one electron was harmed in the composition of this post.

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 20:16:09 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK wrote:

On Mar 21, 5:56*pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 21, 3:29*pm, J Burns wrote:

On 3/21/12 11:39 AM, wrote:

On Mar 21, 11:32 am, J *wrote:
On 3/21/12 9:22 AM, wrote:

And what's that Canadian fetish for putting the freaking panel
sideways, which they did with the new panel?

I can imagine an advantage. *You could use breakers where down was off.

It would only be off for breakers on one part of the
panel, ie the top row or bottom row.

You could use breakers where down was off. *Naturally, it wouldn't work
with breakers were out is off.

Umm, where do you buy those? *When I go to look
for a breaker for a panel, they come in a variety of
flavorrs. * But I've yet to see a choice as to whether
off is towards one side or the other.



Depends on the age of the panel or subpanel.

Back in the 70's, in panels with two rows of breakers, toggled towards
the space between the rows is "off" ( think....too lazy to walk out to
the garage)

That's normal, though depending on how the breakers are made, the opposite
would be easy to imagine.

Electrical code was changed (some time between now & then) and now
requires new panels adhere to:
Up - on
Down - off

That's got to make the panel a lot more complicated. It requires two
independent busses, rather than the alternating bus down the center.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Mar 21, 11:16*pm, DD_BobK wrote:
On Mar 21, 5:56*pm, "
wrote:





On Mar 21, 3:29*pm, J Burns wrote:

On 3/21/12 11:39 AM, wrote:

On Mar 21, 11:32 am, J *wrote:
On 3/21/12 9:22 AM, wrote:

And what's that Canadian fetish for putting the freaking panel
sideways, which they did with the new panel?

I can imagine an advantage. *You could use breakers where down was off.

It would only be off for breakers on one part of the
panel, ie the top row or bottom row.

You could use breakers where down was off. *Naturally, it wouldn't work
with breakers were out is off.

Umm, where do you buy those? *When I go to look
for a breaker for a panel, they come in a variety of
flavorrs. * But I've yet to see a choice as to whether
off is towards one side or the other.

Depends on the age of the panel or subpanel.

Back in the 70's, in panels with two rows of breakers, toggled towards
the space between the rows is "off" ( think....too lazy to walk out to
the garage)

Electrical code was changed (some time between now & then) and now
requires new panels adhere to:
Up - on
Down - off- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I just looked at a Siemens panel that is about 6 years old. Looks
just like
panels have always looked to me. Two rows of breakers and toggled
towards
the center space between them they are ON. Even the panels in Canada
on Holmes shows appear to be the same. So, if there is some new panel
design of which you speak, A it sure isn't common and B I haven't seen
it
yet.

[dpb]

On 3/21/2012 10:16 PM, DD_BobK wrote:
....

Electrical code was changed (some time between now& then) and now
requires new panels adhere to:
Up - on
Down - off

_WHICH_ code do you think does/has this requirement?

Certainly not the US NEC (unless nothing on the market now complies
which would seem unlikely).

I'd be surprised if NEC even proscribed the direction (horizontal or
vertical) for the main disconnect inside a box altho that at least would
have some chance of possibly having been done. But there's no way the
NEC requires branch breakers to all point the same direction.

--

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Mar 22, 12:09*pm, bud-- wrote:
On 3/22/2012 7:10 AM, dpb wrote:





On 3/21/2012 10:16 PM, DD_BobK wrote:
...

Electrical code was changed (some time between now& then) and now
requires new panels adhere to:
Up - on
Down - off

_WHICH_ code do you think does/has this requirement?

Certainly not the US NEC (unless nothing on the market now complies
which would seem unlikely).

I'd be surprised if NEC even proscribed the direction (horizontal or
vertical) for the main disconnect inside a box altho that at least would
have some chance of possibly having been done. But there's no way the
NEC requires branch breakers to all point the same direction.

The NEC requires up to be on _if_ the breaker handle operates
vertically. Probably also apples to switches in general (404.7).


That would seem to prohibit mounting panels Canada/Holmes style
ie horizontal here in the USA. Unless you only used one row of
breakers.



For that reason large panels can not be mounted horizontally.

All the circuit breakers I can think of are on-toward-the-center except FPE

--
bud--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Bud--]

On 3/22/2012 7:10 AM, dpb wrote:
On 3/21/2012 10:16 PM, DD_BobK wrote:
...

Electrical code was changed (some time between now& then) and now
requires new panels adhere to:
Up - on
Down - off

_WHICH_ code do you think does/has this requirement?

Certainly not the US NEC (unless nothing on the market now complies
which would seem unlikely).

I'd be surprised if NEC even proscribed the direction (horizontal or
vertical) for the main disconnect inside a box altho that at least would
have some chance of possibly having been done. But there's no way the
NEC requires branch breakers to all point the same direction.


The NEC requires up to be on _if_ the breaker handle operates
vertically. Probably also apples to switches in general (404.7).

For that reason large panels can not be mounted horizontally.

All the circuit breakers I can think of are on-toward-the-center except FPE

--
bud--

[Bud--]

On 3/21/2012 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Mar 21, 1:37 pm, wrote:
On 3/21/2012 7:22 AM, wrote:





Watching Holmes do his thing on TV, I've noticed that most
of the electric service panels are installed horizontally instead
of vertically. Must be some Canada thing? What's up with
that? It looks nuts to me.

And on a recent episode where he had to fix a bay window,
he wound up tearing out what appeared to me to be a
perfectly fine electric panel. It was installed vertically. He
bitched about some of the wires that went to the breakers
entering the panel from the top and said that was not allowed,
that only the mains could enter from the top.
Mine enter from the top and I've seen new construction here in NJ
where they enter that way. What's up with that? Seems
perfectly safe to me and also, if it's not allowed, why would
the panel manufacturer provide knockouts in the top?

And what's that Canadian fetish for putting the freaking panel
sideways, which they did with the new panel?

What I have pieced together from comments on the show is that the top,
with the hot service wires, has to remain enclosed when the trim is off
and that other wires can not go through that area.

I thought I saw at least one instance of that too, where
there was a secondary metal enclosure of some kind
that isolated the connection to the main breaker even
when the main cover panel was off. That seems
like it might be a good idea. That way if you open
the main, you can work on the rest of the panel without
the danger of hitting the incoming service wires where
they connect to the main breaker. Is it that
way on some panels used here in the USA too, where
they have some secondary cover to close off the main?

I don't know of any US panels that have that. Seems like it would not be
that hard to substantially guard just the service lugs with plastic.
There are 'touch safe' terminal bars for control wiring now.


But I don't see why you could not design a panel that
had the above type of cover for the main and still allow
for wires to enter from the top on either side of it. Cover
the center portion where the main is connected, but then
have knockouts on the left and right at the top where the
wires could come down either side to the breakers.

You probably could build one but it is not likely practical. The spaces
would be cramped. Limited KOs in the top. Service wires may come in the
sides.


If the panel is
vertical the wires come in the lower sides. If the panel is horizontal
the wires travel a shorter distance to get to the same area.

Yes, I got that impression too. Not sure how much it really helps
though as while it's now a straight shot to the upper breakers, it's
still
a long run inside the panel or around the panel to get to the
breakers
that are on the bottom row.


You also wind up with more wires in the top gutter space. I wonder if
Canada has the same limits as the US for gutter wire fill.

--
bud--

[Mark Lloyd[_10_]]

On 03/21/2012 10:16 PM, DD_BobK wrote:

[snip]

Depends on the age of the panel or subpanel.

Back in the 70's, in panels with two rows of breakers, toggled towards
the space between the rows is "off" ( think....too lazy to walk out to
the garage)


On my panel (Square D Q0, vertical) the breakers are ON toward the center.

Electrical code was changed (some time between now& then) and now
requires new panels adhere to:
Up - on
Down - off


--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"A Mormon is a man that has the bad taste and the religion to do what a
good many other people are restrained from doing by conscientious
scruples and the police." Mr. Dooley]

[DD_BobK]

On Mar 22, 9:09*am, bud-- wrote:
On 3/22/2012 7:10 AM, dpb wrote:









On 3/21/2012 10:16 PM, DD_BobK wrote:
...

Electrical code was changed (some time between now& then) and now
requires new panels adhere to:
Up - on
Down - off

_WHICH_ code do you think does/has this requirement?

Certainly not the US NEC (unless nothing on the market now complies
which would seem unlikely).

I'd be surprised if NEC even proscribed the direction (horizontal or
vertical) for the main disconnect inside a box altho that at least would
have some chance of possibly having been done. But there's no way the
NEC requires branch breakers to all point the same direction.

The NEC requires up to be on _if_ the breaker handle operates
vertically. Probably also apples to switches in general (404.7).

For that reason large panels can not be mounted horizontally.

All the circuit breakers I can think of are on-toward-the-center except FPE

--
bud--

Bub-

Thanks for correcting my mis-impression.

When I was told that Up had to be ON & Down had to be off,
I mistakenly thought that Up & Down were the only directions
allowed.... my mistake.

dpb-

What was I thinking?

cheers
Bob

[dpb]

On 3/22/2012 11:09 AM, bud-- wrote:
....

The NEC requires up to be on _if_ the breaker handle operates
vertically. Probably also apples to switches in general (404.7).

Yes, but that's different than requiring UP to be ON irregardless.


For that reason large panels can not be mounted horizontally.

Well, I think 240.33 gives the out there...

It says shall be mounted vertically "unless is shown to be impractical".
It follows on that the compatible protection devices are installed in
the appropriate direction(s).

I don't have a full NEC at hand so can't double-check and
cross-reference in detail but I think the end result is that the only
absolute can't is that the vertically-oriented main can't be ON in DOWN
position (essentially don't mount the panel upside down).

--

[Bud--]

On 3/23/2012 1:12 PM, dpb wrote:
On 3/22/2012 11:09 AM, bud-- wrote:
...

The NEC requires up to be on _if_ the breaker handle operates
vertically. Probably also apples to switches in general (404.7).

Yes, but that's different than requiring UP to be ON irregardless.

"Up" does have to be "on" irregardless.
I assume you are saying breakers are not required to be mounted
vertically. Most of them are horizontal in most panels, which is fine.



For that reason large panels can not be mounted horizontally.

Well, I think 240.33 gives the out there...

It says shall be mounted vertically "unless is shown to be impractical".
It follows on that the compatible protection devices are installed in
the appropriate direction(s).

I don't have a full NEC at hand so can't double-check and
cross-reference in detail but I think the end result is that the only
absolute can't is that the vertically-oriented main can't be ON in DOWN
position (essentially don't mount the panel upside down).

The reference in 240.33 is to 240.81, which is essentially the same as
404.7:
"Where circuit breaker handles are operated vertically ... the 'up'
position of the handle shall be the 'on' position." "Up" as "on" (if
vertical) applies to _all_ the breakers, not just the main breaker.

You could mount a small panel with a single row of a few breakers
'horizontally'. For example a subpanel with 8 breakers in a single row.

For a "large panel", like a service panel with 2 columns of breakers,
mounting horizontally will result in one column/row of breakers having
"on" in the down position - not allowed. The common practice shown on
Holmes is not allowed under the NEC. It is real bizarre when I see it.

--
bud--

[dpb]

On 3/24/2012 9:59 PM, bud-- wrote:
....

For a "large panel", like a service panel with 2 columns of breakers,
mounting horizontally will result in one column/row of breakers having
"on" in the down position - not allowed. The common practice shown on
Holmes is not allowed under the NEC. It is real bizarre when I see it.

I don't think you can make that blanket as completely prohibiting
horizontal mounting; I think there still is the out of "if shown to be
impractical" that gives the leeway when there's some overriding reason
the panel has to go there and only there.

But, in general, yes, I agree and yes, I'm just having fun w/ words,
nothing more...

--

[Steve Barker[_6_]]

On 3/24/2012 9:59 PM, bud-- wrote:
On 3/23/2012 1:12 PM, dpb wrote:
On 3/22/2012 11:09 AM, bud-- wrote:
...

The NEC requires up to be on _if_ the breaker handle operates
vertically. Probably also apples to switches in general (404.7).

Yes, but that's different than requiring UP to be ON irregardless.

"Up" does have to be "on" irregardless.
I assume you are saying breakers are not required to be mounted
vertically. Most of them are horizontal in most panels, which is fine.



For that reason large panels can not be mounted horizontally.

Well, I think 240.33 gives the out there...

It says shall be mounted vertically "unless is shown to be impractical".
It follows on that the compatible protection devices are installed in
the appropriate direction(s).

I don't have a full NEC at hand so can't double-check and
cross-reference in detail but I think the end result is that the only
absolute can't is that the vertically-oriented main can't be ON in DOWN
position (essentially don't mount the panel upside down).

The reference in 240.33 is to 240.81, which is essentially the same as
404.7:
"Where circuit breaker handles are operated vertically ... the 'up'
position of the handle shall be the 'on' position." "Up" as "on" (if
vertical) applies to _all_ the breakers, not just the main breaker.

You could mount a small panel with a single row of a few breakers
'horizontally'. For example a subpanel with 8 breakers in a single row.

For a "large panel", like a service panel with 2 columns of breakers,
mounting horizontally will result in one column/row of breakers having
"on" in the down position - not allowed. The common practice shown on
Holmes is not allowed under the NEC. It is real bizarre when I see it.



i think there's a real possibility here that everyone is not
considering. Perhaps the area Holmes and company deal with are not
subject to the NEC. Many jurisdictions (including no less than two
counties near me) do not have any codes for building. And even if they
do, it doesn't mean they adopt the NEC absurdities.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:36:28 -0500, Steve Barker
wrote:

On 3/24/2012 9:59 PM, bud-- wrote:
On 3/23/2012 1:12 PM, dpb wrote:
On 3/22/2012 11:09 AM, bud-- wrote:
...

The NEC requires up to be on _if_ the breaker handle operates
vertically. Probably also apples to switches in general (404.7).

Yes, but that's different than requiring UP to be ON irregardless.

"Up" does have to be "on" irregardless.
I assume you are saying breakers are not required to be mounted
vertically. Most of them are horizontal in most panels, which is fine.



For that reason large panels can not be mounted horizontally.

Well, I think 240.33 gives the out there...

It says shall be mounted vertically "unless is shown to be impractical".
It follows on that the compatible protection devices are installed in
the appropriate direction(s).

I don't have a full NEC at hand so can't double-check and
cross-reference in detail but I think the end result is that the only
absolute can't is that the vertically-oriented main can't be ON in DOWN
position (essentially don't mount the panel upside down).

The reference in 240.33 is to 240.81, which is essentially the same as
404.7:
"Where circuit breaker handles are operated vertically ... the 'up'
position of the handle shall be the 'on' position." "Up" as "on" (if
vertical) applies to _all_ the breakers, not just the main breaker.

You could mount a small panel with a single row of a few breakers
'horizontally'. For example a subpanel with 8 breakers in a single row.

For a "large panel", like a service panel with 2 columns of breakers,
mounting horizontally will result in one column/row of breakers having
"on" in the down position - not allowed. The common practice shown on
Holmes is not allowed under the NEC. It is real bizarre when I see it.



i think there's a real possibility here that everyone is not
considering. Perhaps the area Holmes and company deal with are not
subject to the NEC. Many jurisdictions (including no less than two
counties near me) do not have any codes for building. And even if they
do, it doesn't mean they adopt the NEC absurdities.

That doesn't explain Holmes whining about vertical panels.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Mar 25, 11:51*am, "
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:36:28 -0500, Steve Barker
wrote:





On 3/24/2012 9:59 PM, bud-- wrote:
On 3/23/2012 1:12 PM, dpb wrote:
On 3/22/2012 11:09 AM, bud-- wrote:
...

The NEC requires up to be on _if_ the breaker handle operates
vertically. Probably also apples to switches in general (404.7).

Yes, but that's different than requiring UP to be ON irregardless.

"Up" does have to be "on" irregardless.
I assume you are saying breakers are not required to be mounted
vertically. Most of them are horizontal in most panels, which is fine.

For that reason large panels can not be mounted horizontally.

Well, I think 240.33 gives the out there...

It says shall be mounted vertically "unless is shown to be impractical".
It follows on that the compatible protection devices are installed in
the appropriate direction(s).

I don't have a full NEC at hand so can't double-check and
cross-reference in detail but I think the end result is that the only
absolute can't is that the vertically-oriented main can't be ON in DOWN
position (essentially don't mount the panel upside down).

The reference in 240.33 is to 240.81, which is essentially the same as
404.7:
"Where circuit breaker handles are operated vertically ... the 'up'
position of the handle shall be the 'on' position." "Up" as "on" (if
vertical) applies to _all_ the breakers, not just the main breaker.

You could mount a small panel with a single row of a few breakers
'horizontally'. For example a subpanel with 8 breakers in a single row..

For a "large panel", like a service panel with 2 columns of breakers,
mounting horizontally will result in one column/row of breakers having
"on" in the down position - not allowed. The common practice shown on
Holmes is not allowed under the NEC. It is real bizarre when I see it.

i think there's a real possibility here that everyone is not
considering. *Perhaps the area Holmes and company deal with are not
subject to the NEC. *Many jurisdictions (including no less than two
counties near me) do not have any codes for building. *And even if they
do, it doesn't mean they adopt the NEC absurdities.

That doesn't explain Holmes whining about vertical panels.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Which was the essence of my post. They seem to have
some strange fetish for mounting the panels sideways. I
think we've established that for the most part, considering
the practical application, it would be a code violation here.
It also seems just plain stupid, what with the panel door
rotated 90, all the markings being sideways, and half the
breakers winding up being on when down.

I wonder if they also mount their wall switches sideways?

[Home Guy]

I wonder if they also mount their wall switches sideways?

Mounting the circuit-breaker panels vertically is the common way it's
done here in Ontario (Canada) - the same jurisdiction that Holmes on
Homes is filmed in.

The only part of our electrical code that might play a role is that the
panel height can't be more than 6.5 feet off the ground (to allow most
people to be able to reach it). Now if you want adults (not children)
to be able to operate the panel, then mounting it horizontally is more
ergonomic, and if a panel is long then again you have a more even height
off the floor if it's horizontal.

Wiring half the panel (the upper half) is technically easier and cleaner
if it's horizontal.

I really haven't laid my eyes on any panels in houses here in Ontario
built in the last 5 or 10 years, so I don't know if the current rage is
to mount them horizontally - or if maybe that's more commonly done on
retrofits and renovations. It could be that if you're renovating and
installing a new panel, that if the length of the existing wires is an
issue then mounting a panel horizontally can save you a lot of grief.

Assuming that wire-length isin't an issue, I'd still wire a panel
vertically.

See also this thread:

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthrea...al-or-vertical

[TimR[_2_]]

I know this is a stupid question, but how does the door work if the
panel is mounted sideways?

Either it is hinged on top, and you have to somehow hold it up while
you're working on breakers, or it's hinged on the bottom, and it comes
down and smacks you in the face when you try to open it.

[Home Guy]

TimR wrote:

I know this is a stupid question, but how does the door work if
the panel is mounted sideways?

Panels aren't required to have doors.

[Steve Barker[_6_]]

On 3/25/2012 10:51 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:36:28 -0500, Steve
wrote:

On 3/24/2012 9:59 PM, bud-- wrote:
On 3/23/2012 1:12 PM, dpb wrote:
On 3/22/2012 11:09 AM, bud-- wrote:
...

The NEC requires up to be on _if_ the breaker handle operates
vertically. Probably also apples to switches in general (404.7).

Yes, but that's different than requiring UP to be ON irregardless.

"Up" does have to be "on" irregardless.
I assume you are saying breakers are not required to be mounted
vertically. Most of them are horizontal in most panels, which is fine.



For that reason large panels can not be mounted horizontally.

Well, I think 240.33 gives the out there...

It says shall be mounted vertically "unless is shown to be impractical".
It follows on that the compatible protection devices are installed in
the appropriate direction(s).

I don't have a full NEC at hand so can't double-check and
cross-reference in detail but I think the end result is that the only
absolute can't is that the vertically-oriented main can't be ON in DOWN
position (essentially don't mount the panel upside down).

The reference in 240.33 is to 240.81, which is essentially the same as
404.7:
"Where circuit breaker handles are operated vertically ... the 'up'
position of the handle shall be the 'on' position." "Up" as "on" (if
vertical) applies to _all_ the breakers, not just the main breaker.

You could mount a small panel with a single row of a few breakers
'horizontally'. For example a subpanel with 8 breakers in a single row.

For a "large panel", like a service panel with 2 columns of breakers,
mounting horizontally will result in one column/row of breakers having
"on" in the down position - not allowed. The common practice shown on
Holmes is not allowed under the NEC. It is real bizarre when I see it.



i think there's a real possibility here that everyone is not
considering. Perhaps the area Holmes and company deal with are not
subject to the NEC. Many jurisdictions (including no less than two
counties near me) do not have any codes for building. And even if they
do, it doesn't mean they adopt the NEC absurdities.

That doesn't explain Holmes whining about vertical panels.

no, but nothing else here has either.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

[Steve Barker[_6_]]

On 3/25/2012 10:12 PM, TimR wrote:
I know this is a stupid question, but how does the door work if the
panel is mounted sideways?

Either it is hinged on top, and you have to somehow hold it up while
you're working on breakers, or it's hinged on the bottom, and it comes
down and smacks you in the face when you try to open it.

Well IF i were to ever get so drunk as to mount one sideways, i'd put
the hinge at the bottom and stand more than 6" away when i opened it.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

[Stormin Mormon[_7_]]

I'd use a dremel tool to cut loose the hinge, and then put a hinge on the
short side of the door.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Steve Barker" wrote in message
...
On 3/25/2012 10:12 PM, TimR wrote:
I know this is a stupid question, but how does the door work if the
panel is mounted sideways?

Either it is hinged on top, and you have to somehow hold it up while
you're working on breakers, or it's hinged on the bottom, and it comes
down and smacks you in the face when you try to open it.

Well IF i were to ever get so drunk as to mount one sideways, i'd put
the hinge at the bottom and stand more than 6" away when i opened it.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

[Steve Barker[_6_]]

On 3/26/2012 8:59 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
I'd use a dremel tool to cut loose the hinge, and then put a hinge on the
short side of the door.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org

LMAO!!

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email